Why Are People More Scared of Facebook Violating Their Privacy than Washington?

Why doesn't domestic surveillance stir more outrage?

This morning, Matt Welch took note of the Senate's bipartisan effort to stop amendments to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that would make the domestic surveillance program more transparent and require compliance with the Fourth Amendment. (To follow up on Welch's notes this morning, Sen. Ron Wyden's amendment was indeed defeated and the act was reauthorized unchanged in a 73-23 vote.)

The traditional media response to the reauthorization battle has been remarkably nonexistent. As I was managing my shift updating Reason 24/7 yesterday afternoon I was learning the outcomes of the votes not from the Associated Press or anything that popped up on my Google newsfeed, but from tweets from the likes of Adam Serwer of Mother Jones or Julian Sanchez of Cato.

There's currently nothing on the New York Times web site about the votes (either yesterday's or today's). The Associated Press wrote a story about the House's vote in September but nothing yet from yesterday or today. The Washington Post did post a story this morning. A Google news search will land hits with mostly tech or web-based media outlets. (Update: Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press e-mailed me to let me know they had indeed published some stories prior to the vote. I was unable to find them yesterday but have no reason to doubt him. Their report on the final vote is here.)

Compare the lack of response to the way people react to privacy breaches connected to Facebook or Twitter. Media outlet after media outlet carried reports about a private picture of Randi Zuckerberg, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's sister, accidentally being made public somehow through social media channels. And how many of your Facebook friends posted that silly, pointless "privacy notice" on their walls?

The easy response is to blame the media for not keeping the public informed. And while Congress' and the Obama Administration's palpable disdain for both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments should horrify all Americans, it should be fairly clear by now that maybe it doesn't for large swaths of people. Media outlets are responding to their respective markets. Those who are covering FISA are doing so because their readers have expressed an interest.

The degradation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is an academic or theoretical matter for so many people and often lacks a strong human narrative to draw public outrage. Indeed, the very secrecy behind the application of federal domestic wiretapping has made it impossible to introduce a human narrative. We do not even know how many Americans have been spied on due to these rules (which was what Wyden's amendment was trying to fix). Like our foreign drone strikes and indefinite detention laws, the public's distance from the actual rights violations (and government-fueled fears of acts of terrorism) is a useful barrier for the state to get away with expanding its authority beyond the Constitution's limitations without significant voter pushback.

Whereas, just about everybody's on Facebook. Facebook's privacy systems affect them directly every day, and they see it. So Americans are furious that Instagram might sell their photos, while shrugging at what the federal government might do with the exact same data.

This grasp of managing outrage is what makes our government's lack of transparency so insidious. Even though the government has admitted that it has violated the Fourth Amendment at least once in its warrantless wiretapping, the outrage is limited to privacy and civil liberties circles precisely because the secrecy keeps the public from even knowing what these violations actually mean.

Reason Associate Editor Mike Riggs thoroughly documented the Obama Administration's failure to live up to his promise to make the federal government more transparent in our December issue. Read it here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

143 responses to “Why Are People More Scared of Facebook Violating Their Privacy than Washington?”

According to the AP, one of the key measures of the bill is to “Bar the government from targeting individuals unless there is a reasonable belief they are not in the United States.”

My question is, does this essentially authorize the govt to monitor individuals who may be using an IP-masking program, like Tor, since it gives the appearance that the data is being routed from outside the country?

So basically, anyone who doesn’t: have more than 7 days of food in their house, work in the private sector, own property, operate a small business for profit, vote GOP, register with a 3rd political party, or post on anarchist sites like Reason, don’t have anything to worry about?

I’m pretty sure if you *don’t* own a gun, have more than 7 days of food in your house, work in the private sector, own property, operate a small business for profit, vote GOP, register with a 3rd political party, or post on anarchist sites like Reason,it makes you look suspiciously like you are trying to hide something.

People who don’t act suspiciously are the ones the government are most suspicious of.

This grasp of managing outrage is what makes our government’s lack of transparency so insidious. Even though the government has admitted that it has violated the Fourth Amendment at least once in its warrantless wiretapping, the outrage is limited to privacy and civil liberties circles precisely because the secrecy keeps the public from even knowing what these violations actually mean.

I do the same. And when they ask me if I’d like a private screening, I tell them I want it done as publicly as possible and I even offer to remove my shirt and pants. They always say “that won’t be necessary,” to which I reply “it hasn’t stopped you from going this far.”

Fun fact: there are also signs prohibiting recording (and even mere USE of cell phones) in Canadian border holding pens. Bonus humiliation is when they say you’re not allowed to use the restroom until you’ve been “cleared” and then 40 minutes later you see the confused foreigners plead with the thugs to let their frail, veiled grannies and cute kids use the bathroom and they begrudgingly allow it. Merry fucking Christmas.

So someone in a locked room is making fun of you to someone else in a locked room, and they will never meet you or see you or know anything about you. Who cares? This happens with clothes on too, all the time. If a tree falls in the forest, who the hell cares?

So I guess the Jezebel commentariat now has no problem with creepshots, right?

People are more vocal about Facebook because it’s something they use every day. Most people don’t know what FISA is, how it violates their rights, or why they should care, which is just how the feds want it.

It is very simple. There is at least a significant chance that what is on facebook can hurt them. Their wives or employer or someone else with direct affect on their lives could see what is on facebook. Facebook can cause harm in a way people understand. In contrast, most people cannot conceive of the NSA listening into their conversation much less caring enough to use that information in any damaging way. Which is more likely, that your wife finds your secret facebook account where you communicate with your mistress or the NSA listens into your telephone conversation with the mistress and turns it over to your wife?

Most people don’t look at taxes as extortion. And most people could care less if the cops are listening to their phone because they don’t think they are doing anything to ever give the cops any reason to care. Maybe they are wrong in thinking that. But it is a bit puzzling to me that Reason isn’t bright enough to figure out that is why they care about Facebook but no the government.

Those wouldn’t be the 46% who don’t pay any taxes and who, ironically, showed up in the exact same number in a poll saying that Obamas 2nd term will be better as opposed to worse(in other words, I will get more free shit), would they?

I pay a lot of taxes. I don’t like them but I don’t look at them as extortion. And at least in my own life, Facebook would be more likely to do real damage to me than the government. For that reason, I am a hell of a lot more concerned about Facebook than I am the government. It is simple self interest.

And you don’t help yourself to any respect here by going “baaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh” all day.

Did they change your government job to “internet troll” in the past couple of weeks? If so, you’re gonna make GS-21 in no time, because you truly excel at licking the boot of your master on a site where it doesn’t play well.

How so? It is certainly wrong. But it doesn’t affect my life. My wife isn’t going to divorce me. I won’t be any poorer. I won’t be publicly humiliated. What showing of damage could I make?

Something can be wrong in principle. The government reading your emails is wrong because it is illegal. It doesn’t matter if you are actually harmed and in fact in most cases you won’t be. But that is not the point.

It doesn’t even matter how much one pays. It’s the fact that they use the money as handouts to their political donor cronies. They don’t use the money for the benefit of the citizens that pay the taxes. When that happens, it is no longer taxes, it’s extortion.

I think your 90% estimate is way off. And I am only referring to the US, I don’t really care about what governments in the rest of the world do with their tax revenues, as it doesn’t affect me.

In the US, I would say that there is probably 50% who think what the government does with taxes is not extortion to at least some degree. Those are the 50% who don’t pay any taxes or work for the government in DC.

Our federal government is way past the point of giving a fuck what the people think, and they truly believe that the revenue collected from the rest of us is for them to buy votes with and reward their crony donors. The few in DC that do not think that way can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

I am truly starting to believe what Peter Thiel and a few others are saying, that Democracy is not compatible with liberty. Once voters discover that they can vote themselves free stuff, most are ready to give up all freedom for said free stuff. We are already past that point.

What would you do If you were asked to give up your dreams for free stuff? What would you do If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?

Would you think about all them people Who gave up everything they had? Would you think about all them occupiers And would you start to feel bad?

Free stuff isn’t free It costs folks like you and me And if we don’t all chip in We’ll never pay that bill Free stuff isn’t free No, there’s a hefty in’ fee. And if you don’t throw in your buck ‘o five Who will?

What would you do If someone told you to fight for free stuff? Would you answer the call Or run away like a little pussy? ‘Cause the only reason that you’re here Is ’cause folks paid for you in the past So maybe now it’s your turn To pay through your fucking ass

Free stuff isn’t free It costs folks like you and me And if we don’t all chip in We’ll never pay that bill Free stuff isn’t free Now there’s a hefty in’ fee And if you don’t throw in your buck ‘o five Who will?

They are good enough to inspire my favorite limerick of all time, so, no, I am not suggesting that at all. Someone less lazy can probably find the one that gave us the best new word of 2012: shigellical.

Sure I can opt out of it. But what if I don’t want to. What are the chances the feds are ever going to notice me, much less do anything? Zero and zero. What are the chances some nut is going to hack my facebook account and figure out who my family and friends are and do God know what? That would be 100%.

Yeah, I worry about things that are likely to actually happen. Do I think the NSA should be reading my emails? No. Do I think them reading them will affect my life in any way? No and I don’t see how that changes anytime soon. There is a difference between principle and absolute harm.

What are the chances the feds are ever going to notice me, much less do anything?

Seeing as they have your tax records, your vital records, control over your social security/pension and the ability to take anything they want through asset forfeiture, I’d say they have done and can do anything they want.

What are the chances some nut is going to hack my facebook account and figure out who my family and friends are and do God know what? That would be 100%.

Yes, the newspapers are filled to the brim of this happening. Since the chance of that happening is 100%, I’m sure it’s already happened to you, me and every other person on here with a FB account. Shall we ask the commentariat with FB accounts if your assertion is true?

Yeah, I worry about things that are likely to actually happen. Do I think the NSA should be reading my emails? No. Do I think them reading them will affect my life in any way? No and I don’t see how that changes anytime soon. There is a difference between principle and absolute harm.

Replace the words “reading my emails” with “entering my property” or “searching my automobile” or any other invasion of privacy and tell me if you’re still OK with it.

If you want to give up your liberty and privacy, feel free. But stop being so flippant about your employer ignoring the rights of people who still value both.

If you use their privacy settings wrong and your wife finds out you’re having an affair, that’s called “user error” and you’re just a big dope. It’s no different from writing your mistress a love letter and leaving it in your pocket for your wife to find. That’s not a “mail privacy problem”. That’s a “you’re a dumbass” problem.

Their privacy policy is where they tell you how they’re going to use your information. And that tends to be what agitates the asshole faction in the tech press. “Oh noes, Google sends me targeted ads based on my searches and based on the web content I read and based on keywords in my email! IZ BEEZ VIOLATEDZ!”

Some nut did hack into my facebook account. That said nut is the most notorious troll on here. She hacked into it, changed the privacy settings and then started linking to my account on here.

So yes, sloopy, I don’t think the chances are 100%. I know they are 100%, since it happened.

And Fluffy. The customers of google and facebook have every right to complain and be concerned who is using their information. They are the customers aren’t they? Do they not have a right to at least complain and ask for different service?

Because they happened to you doesn’t make the chances 100%, you stupid asshole. It just means it happened to you. Your statistical analysis would be like me saying the odds are 100% that having a Directv account means you are watching ST:TNG right now just because I am.

Sorry that Mary got into your account. That’s not my fault. It’s yours. It’s also against the law and you should pursue the matter with FB and your local police department.

You’re still a bootlicker because you don’t give a fuck about the government violating two of the most basic tenets our nation was founded upon: privacy and liberty. And until you realize that privacy and liberty are absolute principles and the default position should be for the government to respect them unless they have obtained a warrant, you’ll be on the wrong side of the argument.

Yes, I am describing how people are. And I have said on at least two occasions that they may be wrong about that but that is what they think and they are not irrational for thinking so. That is all i ever said.

But sloopy doesn’t care about what I actually said. He just wants a stand in and a Goldstein to rage about.

And it happened to me retard and that means it happens to other people. So that makes it perfectly reasonable for people to be concerned about it.

Just admit that you shot off your mouth about it never happening and I called you on it. So rather than admit you were wrong, you went on some insulting rant pretending I said a bunch of shit I never said. Stop showing your ass and move on.

If you honestly believe the rate of FB accounts being hacked is greater than the amount of people the government illegally obtains information about, then so be it.

And show me where I claimed it “never happens”, shit for brains.

You’ve resorted to calling me paranoid, yet I’ve been a victim of 4A violations, as has every person on here that ever went through a DUI checkpoint, a CA border checkpoint, a USBP stop 100 miles inland, an airport security search, registered a firearm with the government or had their car stopped by a park ranger and searched in Yosemite. So fuck you and your inability to come up with a Mary-proof password. That’s small potatoes compared to the persistent and gross abuse of our Constitutional rights the government perpetrates on us every fucking day.

“Oh noes, Google sends me targeted ads based on my searches and based on the web content I read and based on keywords in my email! IZ BEEZ VIOLATEDZ!”

If only that were the way it worked. No amount of searching, “Avy Scott buttfucking” (or its various permutations) or, “shooting machine guns while tripping balls on mescaline” has ever generated anything even remotely useful to my tastes.

I do still get ads for generators at Home Depot because I searched for info on portable gennies 4 years ago.

“their conversation much less caring enough to use that information in any damaging way. Which is more likely, that your wife finds your secret facebook account where you communicate with your mistress or the NSA listens into your telephone conversation with the mistress and turns it over to your wife?”

Since I am not the head of the CIA and not conducting an affair with my ghost writer, ask away. If they ever offer me the job as head of the CIA, I will be sure to be real concerned about the NSA reading my mail. Until that time and I am just another anonymous schmuck out there, I think the chances of the NSA extorting me are pretty fucking slim.

Ok, let’s ask Khaled El-Masri that question…Or are you not worried because you don’t have an Arab sounding name…how about this guy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml…given the government’s secrecy, there are likely far more examples of average joes swept up in this that aren’t publicly known.

If I had an Arab name, I might be more concerned. But I don’t. And most people don’t. And that is another reason why most people are more concerned about Facebook. For the same reason people who don’t live on mountain tops are less concerned about lightening strikes than those who do.

I wouldn’t say that it’s no big deal seeing the government shit all over my right to privacy, but at the same time John’s explanation is pretty reasonable. I guess I could poll the people in my workplace to substantiate the assumption, but thinking that people fear what their spouses/friends/employers might think about them before they fear what some faceless government department might think about them seems like a reasonable assumption.

I think the government violating people’s privacy is a big deal too. But I think it is a big deal because it is wrong and illegal and immoral not because I think the NSA is reading my mail or would personally worry about what might happen to me if they did. I am just trying to explain to a bunch of paranoids how non paranoids think.

I point this out to my wife all the time and it falls on deaf ears. She’s outraged when Lowe’s want her telephone number to track her purchases and make returns easier, but willingly fills out all of the information on her tax returns, etc. I don’t care if Lowe’s has my info. They’ve never violated my rights. I put as much erroneous shit on my tax form as I can get away with. I just had to file for a couple of years ago when I “forgot” and in the “occupation” field, I put “Not extortion like you.”

They won’t violate your rights. They will just sell your telephone number to a bunch of telemarketers who will annoy the shit out of you. Fuck Lowes, they don’t need my phone number. They need my money. And if my money isn’t good enough I will go somewhere else. I never give them my phone number.

Just because they are not the government, doesn’t mean they won’t fuck you in the ass or that you should take said ass fucking.

I can count on one hand the number of calls I have received from telemarketers in the past year. And I always use my phone number. It’s optional. They don’t force you to give it to them in order to do business with them. They do it as a service so when you lose your receipt, you can still return an item. Or if you bought paint and lost the color swatch, they can make more for you. What a concept!

Both TEAMS engage in it when they have the majority. They have just enough NAY votes to give legitimacy to the idea of there being opposition, but not enough that a vote or two one way or the other will change the outcome.

Who knows why, but people seem to identify a sense of purchase with social media more than they do with government, so they tend to want to hold Facebook more accountable with managing their privacy than they do government. People look at social media as voluntary services that they “buy into,” and the primary users of social media (middle and upper class Americans) now view their tax payments as more of an obligation than a willful payment for services. Basically, people’ve given up on government but are oddly optimistic about the accountability of services like Facebook. That’s my take on it.